Trumps Iranian Sanctions, what is he trying to achieve?

Sig said:
If we're not imposing sanctions on them because of their nuclear weapons program then why the heck are we? Because they're a backward Islamic country that murdered and dismembered a Washington Post journalist in Istanbul? Because they're where 15 of the 19 9/11 bombers were from? Because they're the home and sponsor of the Wahabi sect of the Muslim religion responsible for the last majority of Muslim terror attacks? Because they deny Israel's right to exist? Oh, sorry, I got mixed up with our "ally" Saudi Arabia.
You can't have a well meaning intelligent discussion on Iran if you pretend that the majority of the U.S. concern around Iran isn't around thier nuclear program, sorry that's just not intellectually honest.
Iran has literally been under sanctions since the revolution 40 years ago. That's a pretty good definition for the status quo. It hasn't resulted in much in the way of positive outcomes and there isn't any indication that this time will be any different?
More...

You are wildly misinterpreting my response out of context. I was simply stating that I could find no UN or IAEA supporting information that there was a direct causal relationship between external sanctions and a nuclear armed Iran. I literally could find no authorship that made the case that sanctions spurred development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. For that matter - there was plenty of scientific opinion that Iran does NOT to date possess a nuclear weapon.
 
bone said:
You are wildly misinterpreting my response out of context. I was simply stating that I could find no UN or IAEA supporting information that there was a direct causal relationship between external sanctions and a nuclear armed Iran. I literally could find no authorship that made the case that sanctions spurred development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. For that matter - there was plenty of scientific opinion that Iran does NOT to date possess a nuclear weapon.
More...
Simple question, why are sanctioning Iran?
 
Sig said:
If we're not imposing sanctions on them because of their nuclear weapons program then why the heck are we? Because they're a backward Islamic country that murdered and dismembered a Washington Post journalist in Istanbul? Because they're where 15 of the 19 9/11 bombers were from? Because they're the home and sponsor of the Wahabi sect of the Muslim religion responsible for the last majority of Muslim terror attacks? Because they deny Israel's right to exist? Oh, sorry, I got mixed up with our "ally" Saudi Arabia.
You can't have a well meaning intelligent discussion on Iran if you pretend that the majority of the U.S. concern around Iran isn't around thier nuclear program, sorry that's just not intellectually honest.
Iran has literally been under sanctions since the revolution 40 years ago. That's a pretty good definition for the status quo. It hasn't resulted in much in the way of positive outcomes and there isn't any indication that this time will be any different?
More...
I would have "liked" this at least another dozen times if the like system would've let me.

Truly amazing why wingnuts don't get it. Just like the Cuban embargo for almost 60 years. All that has resulted in is wingnuts continuing to vote straight party line. Not that the other side (Dems) have ever given them many reasons to vote for them instead because they have "issues" too.
 
SunTrader said:
Just like the Cuban embargo for almost 60 years. All that has resulted in is wingnuts continuing to vote straight party line.
More...

That makes no sense at all. The Cuban embargo was expanded by President Kennedy (D) (who authorized Castro assassination attempts BTW), were codified in the Cuban Democracy Act by a Democratic Congress in 1992, and expanded by President Clinton (D) in 1999.

It was President Jimmy Carter (D) who originally imposed sanctions on Iran.

With the notable exception of President Obama’s recent efforts the Cuban, North Korean, Libyan and Iranian embargoes were supported by BOTH political parties for decades.

Some accommodations were made for humanitarian exports through the years but with the notable recent exceptions of Presidents Obama and Trump these embargoes were historically not a partisan issue. And these embargoes don’t poll as a significant issue with voters quite frankly. Iran didn’t get Trump elected.
 
He is trying to achieve his campaign promises for the Saudis and Netanyahu as promised, there is no policy objective in any of his decisions.
 
piezoe said:
You won't get any argument from me on the question of two much regulation. What you will get is objection to a blanket remedy which amounts to elimination of regulation without discriminating between needed regulation and superfluous or counterproductive regulation. I am not one of those who thinks, because mistakes have been made, the best solution is to wreck government and start over. A far, far better way is to examine the regulations we've already got and eliminate those that are just extra baggage without any substantial benefit, or those that amount to regulatory capture. Fine tuning is better than "carpet bombing" and rebuilding from scratch in most instances.
More...



Your love for incrementalism rather than true change made you a good fit for your years as a government serf.
 
Screen-Shot-2018-11-02-at-11.56.54-AM.png
 
piezoe said:
My love for logic makes me a poor fit for the "twin towers was an inside job" crowd.
More...

Your "love for logic" also keeps you from believing that there is/was an inside job in the FBI-DOJ and elsewhere in the swamp to undermine a political presidential candidate and president-elect.

There is a thin line between your "love for logic" and just a basic lefty trance state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top